They're not even comparable. Religion is a body of beliefs. Science is a process for understanding the natural world. One is a thing, the other is an activity>. It would be like comparing apples to eating.

Religion just doesn't like it when Science investigates its assertions, but that's hardly Science's fault. Science investigates everything -- that's what it does. It is not dogma, it is a methodology.

radarlove:AdolfOliverPanties: radarlove: AdolfOliverPanties: radarlove: I'm amazed that you people are still arguing with each other over something that can never be either proven nor dis-proven by either side.

You're all a bunch of farking idiots.

Your reading comprehension is terrible and it makes you calling us idiots extremely funny.

No one is arguing over the existence of deity here, chuckles.

Did I say deity?

Looks like your reading comprehension could use some work. But hey, keep making inferences, idiot.

What is it then that you say can never be proven or dis-proven by either side, that we idiots are supposedly arguing about in this thread. I honestly want to know.

You're arguing over who is the bigger asshole.

Nice attempt at saving face, but you pulled that one out of your ass. You saw Dawkins in the thread title and assumed it was an Atheist vs Believers thread. No one is arguing whether Higgs or Dawkins is a bigger asshole. No one has stated that Higgs is an asshole at all.

Just man up and accept you lost this one. It isn't a big deal. Move on.

If you keep going, people might start to argue over which one of us two is the biggest asshole, and you're way ahead on points in that one.

Sybarite:I guess I don't understand why outrageous claims with no supporting evidence are acceptable targets for ridicule (be it healing crystals, or psychics, or ancient aliens, or whatever), yet somehow the silliness of theism is supposed to be treated with kid gloves.

Wants a word:

It's all silly. I treat organized religion with the same hazardous materials gloves as I do magic crystal woo-woo nonsense. It's fun, and sometimes it's even creative and even inspirational...but it's no way to go through life, haunted by fictive demons and crippling guilt/moral superiority.

My late mother told me about Protestant kids chucking rocks at her (for going to a Catholic school and presumably the Pope's whore) on Fridays and in particular King Billy Day.

The last time I saw an Orangeman parade about 20 years ago, it was a feeble, elderly affair watched with boredom and faint curiosity by hordes of recent immigrants who couldn't quite get what was happening. It's stopped now.

"What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists,"

When the religious accept a secular society in which religion is relegated to it's proper place inside peoples homes and places of worship people like Dawkins will stop. The only way to have true freedom of religion is to have a secular society. It has no business in government or the public square.

On the other hand if secularists quit the religious will not be satisfied with the over reaching control they already have and will seek to push their religion in to everything. These are not just fundamentalists or extremists. It's the nature of religion to do this to society anytime it gains power over it.

Pushing back hard against the creep of religion in to all portions of society is only required because of the religious.

maggoo:AdolfOliverPanties: Dawkins is an asshole. No matter what he professes or teaches, bottom line is that he is a dick about it. He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.

Care to compare Dawkins' assholeness with any random cynical ploy pulled by a megachurch?

The spanish inquisition: those assholes.

Speaking of assholes, a surprisingly large number of fundie preachers/Catholic priests like to play with 'em, usually after some hot, sweaty preaching of manlove as being an abomination, etc.

I don't think Dawkins has been found, by way of contrast, with one hand in the collection plate and the other one on the back of a choirboy's head. That scenario is almost as expected these days as a random mass murder in America.

I think there is room for both approaches. We need people like Higgs who can help use science to educate people with open minds. And we need people like Dawkins to fight the fundamentalists because the moderates won't step up and fight them. If groups would take care of their own dirty laundry, there wouldn't be a need for outsiders to fill that role. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, they won't.

AdolfOliverPanties:radarlove: AdolfOliverPanties: radarlove: AdolfOliverPanties: radarlove: I'm amazed that you people are still arguing with each other over something that can never be either proven nor dis-proven by either side.

You're all a bunch of farking idiots.

Your reading comprehension is terrible and it makes you calling us idiots extremely funny.

No one is arguing over the existence of deity here, chuckles.

Did I say deity?

Looks like your reading comprehension could use some work. But hey, keep making inferences, idiot.

What is it then that you say can never be proven or dis-proven by either side, that we idiots are supposedly arguing about in this thread. I honestly want to know.

You're arguing over who is the bigger asshole.

Nice attempt at saving face, but you pulled that one out of your ass. You saw Dawkins in the thread title and assumed it was an Atheist vs Believers thread. No one is arguing whether Higgs or Dawkins is a bigger asshole. No one has stated that Higgs is an asshole at all.

Just man up and accept you lost this one. It isn't a big deal. Move on.

If you keep going, people might start to argue over which one of us two is the biggest asshole, and you're way ahead on points in that one.

While my initial post may have been intentionally and trollishly vague, I assure you that assholishness was completely my point. The fact of the matter is that that is ALL that you people EVER argue about, regardless of the topic. Religion, vegetarianism, the fiscal cliff, gun control, dog ownership, food allergies, circumcision- it doesn't matter. Every single argument any of you people get into can be boiled down to who you think is the bigger asshole. In this particular argument it isn't about Dawkins vs Higgs (and why would you think that I would believe Peter Higgs to be religious, especially considering the content of TFA?), but rather the religious (including Atheists) vs. the non-religious (including theists).

And guess what? Same as always, they're both equally assholish. Every single one of us is an asshole of equal proportion and gape, including you and I.

Arguing over who is the bigger one in any situation is not only the height of idiocy, but the height of blind childishness.

But you're right, I should just bow out of the thread and not engage in what is surely to become an argument.

I'm okay with being honest with myself and admitting that I'm an asshole- but I'm not okay with making myself a farking idiot.

piledhigheranddeeper:The masses accept the Higgs approach towards God/science. The masses also pay taxes that fund research. The Dawkins approach will get us run out of town and our funding revoked.

When the food gets tainted and the cars stop and the lights go out because all those fundie taxpayers stop paying for science, I assume they can huddle hungry in cold churches for warmth around their candles, which are a fine, medieval technology.

There's a lot of imams and preachers on chemo and radiation trying to beat the Big C and other ills. They really don't wish to live Biblically or Koranically when it's pointed out to them what life was really like then. Surprisingly few of them want to be shuffled off to Paradise, either. Why is that, I wonder?

Valiente:piledhigheranddeeper: The masses accept the Higgs approach towards God/science. The masses also pay taxes that fund research. The Dawkins approach will get us run out of town and our funding revoked.

When the food gets tainted and the cars stop and the lights go out because all those fundie taxpayers stop paying for science, I assume they can huddle hungry in cold churches for warmth around their candles, which are a fine, medieval technology.

There's a lot of imams and preachers on chemo and radiation trying to beat the Big C and other ills. They really don't wish to live Biblically or Koranically when it's pointed out to them what life was really like then. Surprisingly few of them want to be shuffled off to Paradise, either. Why is that, I wonder?

They're not even comparable. Religion is a body of beliefs. Science is a process for understanding the natural world. One is a thing, the other is an activity>. It would be like comparing apples to eating.

Religion just doesn't like it when Science investigates its assertions, but that's hardly Science's fault. Science investigates everything -- that's what it does. It is not dogma, it is a methodology.

Balls, if it were not for Richard, there would BE almost no modern mass public debate about religion. Before he put out 'The God Delusion' the truth and possible negative social impact of religion had almost become the taboo subject its adherents wish it to be, but now even wet fish like Higgs feel the urge to contribute to the topic. To suggest he has done harm to the secular and atheist causes is laughable.

radarlove:While my initial post may have been intentionally and trollishly vague, I assure you that assholishness was completely my point. The fact of the matter is that that is ALL that you people EVER argue about, regardless of the topic. Religion, vegetarianism, the fiscal cliff, gun control, dog ownership, food allergies, circumcision- it doesn't matter. Every single argument any of you people get into can be boiled down to who you think is the bigger asshole. In this particular argument it isn't about Dawkins vs Higgs (and why would you think that I would believe Peter Higgs to be religious, especially considering the content of TFA?), but rather the religious (including Atheists) vs. the non-religious (including theists).

And guess what? Same as always, they're both equally assholish. Every single one of us is an asshole of equal proportion and gape, including you and I.

Arguing over who is the bigger one in any situation is not only the height of idiocy, but the height of blind childishness.

But you're right, I should just bow out of the thread and not engage in what is surely to become an argument.

I'm okay with being honest with myself and admitting that I'm an asshole- but I'm not okay with making myself a farking idiot.

If people didn't argue endlessly over things that cannot be definitively settled, Fark would probably cease to exist.

They're not even comparable. Religion is a body of beliefs. Science is a process for understanding the natural world. One is a thing, the other is an activity>. It would be like comparing apples to eating.

Religion just doesn't like it when Science investigates its assertions, but that's hardly Science's fault. Science investigates everything -- that's what it does. It is not dogma, it is a methodology.

Science is a noun, not a verb.

You should drop by Los Alamos sometime. We science everything around here. We science the hell out of it.

had98c:Silverstaff: Slaxl: Ultimately there is no alternative to Dawkins' approach, because all he does is tell the truth.

No, Dawkins is an attention whoring asshole.

Supporting reason and logic is one thing, actively calling people of faith mentally ill and deluded and insulting and belittling them doesn't win converts over, it is just the atheistic version of preaching to the choir.

His jackassery gives the religious plenty of fodder to depict atheism as a religion unto itself (and an evil one at that), because of the zealotry and fervor that he approaches it with is very much akin to religious.

When Dawkins is insulting people for having religion, and since most people are at least nominally religious, all faith leaders have to do is to play nice and look reasonable and benevolent and suddenly Dawkins looks like the looney calling everybody crazy.

Even if he supports the search for truth, reason and logic, he's such a poor ambassador for it that he isn't exactly winning over converts, just rallying his own "faithful" (or faithless as it were).

He's not going to win over any converts anyway since almost everyone already has their mind made up barring some grand event that swings evidence in such a way that nobody could really ignore it, like the second coming or something. So he might as well be an ass for all the good it'll do for him to be nice. It's much, much better to be right than to be liked.

I'd hate to get to the pearlly gates after being a dick all my life about the non-existence of the pearlly gates..

lots of people believe things I know to be bs, and lots of people believe things that are true, but I just don't understand, I try not to be a dick about it, cause I don't want them to be dicks about it ..

ie: there's a good reason for just not being a dick, like just not being a dick..

They're not even comparable. Religion is a body of beliefs. Science is a process for understanding the natural world. One is a thing, the other is an activity>. It would be like comparing apples to eating.

Religion just doesn't like it when Science investigates its assertions, but that's hardly Science's fault. Science investigates everything -- that's what it does. It is not dogma, it is a methodology.

:D

not to mention that religion is for stupid poopy heads but science will always trump it with its rational-logical awesomeness!!1!

Yes, and to clarify the confusion, I think science should only be used as a verb for now on, as in "Let me science a paper on it to verify your claim" or "The bacterium is sciencing this petri dish" or "I totally scienced your mom last night".

I see Ishkur is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

Ishkur is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you2) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which may include a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter or3) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached)

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this three year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the Wason Selection Task with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually revealed that everyone was wrong.

It's part of his technique to constantly assume Authoritarian control. He gets off on giving people challenges and quests with no point other than so he can withhold the non-existent answers from them (like his "True Definition of Nature" theory -- he poses this riddle to everyone but there's no answer. He just enjoys watching people struggle). It's the old schoolyard power trip: "I know something you don't and I won't tell you what it is".

That he's been doing this schtick for so long is an indication that he will never stop and there's nothing new to be garnered from him, like he's stuck in a perpetual feedback loop, recycling the same arguments in every religion thread (he's probably already posted the Wason test that he so infamously failed at solving many years ago. It's his way of dealing with the embarrassment by mocking it).

Despite the fact that he frequently loses these discussions, he'll continue posting them as if they're unsolvable, ignoring repeated and consistent replies defeating them. He has never been the type to swallow his pride and admit when he's wrong so you'll never get anywhere with him (and he'll always mock you if you try). It is very likely that he has NPD and people replying to him on Fark is how he strokes his ego so he can never stop no matter how many humiliating threads send him down in flames.

In short: He is a complete and total waste of your god damn time. Reply at your peril; I suggest ignore.

petec:had98c: Silverstaff: Slaxl: Ultimately there is no alternative to Dawkins' approach, because all he does is tell the truth.

No, Dawkins is an attention whoring asshole.

Supporting reason and logic is one thing, actively calling people of faith mentally ill and deluded and insulting and belittling them doesn't win converts over, it is just the atheistic version of preaching to the choir.

His jackassery gives the religious plenty of fodder to depict atheism as a religion unto itself (and an evil one at that), because of the zealotry and fervor that he approaches it with is very much akin to religious.

When Dawkins is insulting people for having religion, and since most people are at least nominally religious, all faith leaders have to do is to play nice and look reasonable and benevolent and suddenly Dawkins looks like the looney calling everybody crazy.

Even if he supports the search for truth, reason and logic, he's such a poor ambassador for it that he isn't exactly winning over converts, just rallying his own "faithful" (or faithless as it were).

He's not going to win over any converts anyway since almost everyone already has their mind made up barring some grand event that swings evidence in such a way that nobody could really ignore it, like the second coming or something. So he might as well be an ass for all the good it'll do for him to be nice. It's much, much better to be right than to be liked.

I'd hate to get to the pearlly gates after being a dick all my life about the non-existence of the pearlly gates..

lots of people believe things I know to be bs, and lots of people believe things that are true, but I just don't understand, I try not to be a dick about it, cause I don't want them to be dicks about it ..

ie: there's a good reason for just not being a dick, like just not being a dick..

Pascal's wager is a piss poor reason to not be a dick because if that is all that is stopping you from being a dick you are probably not going to be able to stop yourself from being a dick.

gaspode: To suggest he has done harm to the secular and atheist causes is laughable.

To suggest that there is a "secular or atheist cause" is fairly amusing in and of itself. It's like belonging to the Gravity Club, where members discuss the physical attribute of matter that least cares about your opinion.

I do not care if you believe in the divine collector of foreskins/hater of bacon, or even the FSM. I do care if you build public policy around it, or try to convert me, or try to deny me my right to avoid participating in your mumbo-jumbo.

In other words, you don't have to be like me, a heathenistic rationalist (yeah, I know). I, however, don't care for your monotheistic madness and wish to unsubscribe to your paradigms.

Religions that don't seek converts are rare. Religions that do good works and don't seek much outside help are also rare. I don't mind them much, even if I think a humanist organization could cut to the chase a little more effectively (stuff the psalms and pass the platter).

So I have trouble with the idea that non-belief is a cause. You can't "convert" to rationality unless you are pretty well crazy and get the right mix of anti-psychotics...and if this is what you meant, I salute your subtle trolling.

Yes, and to clarify the confusion, I think science should only be used as a verb for now on, as in "Let me science a paper on it to verify your claim" or "The bacterium is sciencing this petri dish" or "I totally scienced your mom last night".

buck1138:petec: had98c: Silverstaff: Slaxl: Ultimately there is no alternative to Dawkins' approach, because all he does is tell the truth.

No, Dawkins is an attention whoring asshole.

Supporting reason and logic is one thing, actively calling people of faith mentally ill and deluded and insulting and belittling them doesn't win converts over, it is just the atheistic version of preaching to the choir.

His jackassery gives the religious plenty of fodder to depict atheism as a religion unto itself (and an evil one at that), because of the zealotry and fervor that he approaches it with is very much akin to religious.

When Dawkins is insulting people for having religion, and since most people are at least nominally religious, all faith leaders have to do is to play nice and look reasonable and benevolent and suddenly Dawkins looks like the looney calling everybody crazy.

Even if he supports the search for truth, reason and logic, he's such a poor ambassador for it that he isn't exactly winning over converts, just rallying his own "faithful" (or faithless as it were).

He's not going to win over any converts anyway since almost everyone already has their mind made up barring some grand event that swings evidence in such a way that nobody could really ignore it, like the second coming or something. So he might as well be an ass for all the good it'll do for him to be nice. It's much, much better to be right than to be liked.

I'd hate to get to the pearlly gates after being a dick all my life about the non-existence of the pearlly gates..

lots of people believe things I know to be bs, and lots of people believe things that are true, but I just don't understand, I try not to be a dick about it, cause I don't want them to be dicks about it ..

ie: there's a good reason for just not being a dick, like just not being a dick..

Pascal's wager is a piss poor reason to not be a dick because if that is all that is stopping you from being a dick you are probably not going to be able ...

I drunk what:I see Ishkur is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

If I were a troll and I saw that someone had pre-prepared a two page manifesto denouncing and analyzing my trolling on the off chance that they encountered a thread that I was in, I'd cum in my farking pants.

revrendjim:AdolfOliverPanties: Dawkins is an asshole. No matter what he professes or teaches, bottom line is that he is a dick about it. He's easily done as much to hurt atheism as he has done to help it.

Yes, but the dickishness of one's demeanor has no bearing on the truthfulness of the argument.

gaspode:... To suggest he has done harm to the secular and atheist causes is laughable.

This.How can one hurt a non-belief? Non-belief isn't a religion.I liken these complainers complaining that I am an arsehole and am hurting the hobby of NOT stamp collecting.

I suppose the only real way to hurt atheism is for theists to actually provide evidence and facts for their deity's existence.... which isn't happening because no matter how hard they WANT to believe, skydaddy isn't real.

radarlove:I drunk what: I see Ishkur is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

If I were a troll and I saw that someone had pre-prepared a two page manifesto denouncing and analyzing my trolling on the off chance that they encountered a thread that I was in, I'd cum in my farking pants.

interesting, and how would you feel if you weren't a troll?

some have suggested pity, but sadness is usually more appropriate for those that are too stupid to be helped...

personally i think he can be good for something, even poop serves a purpose in nature

just like the topic of this thread, our beloved Dick Dawkins can be a useful tool given the right scenario, so then Richard Dawkins Jr. here (aka Ishkur) probably has some beneficial quality to his otherwise meaningless and useless life..?

radarlove:I drunk what: I see Ishkur is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

If I were a troll and I saw that someone had pre-prepared a two page manifesto denouncing and analyzing my trolling on the off chance that they encountered a thread that I was in, I'd cum in my farking pants.

I'll wager even Saddam appreciated all those poorly sculpted statues. It's the thought of having electrodes on your nuts that counts.

Silverstaff:Even if he supports the search for truth, reason and logic, he's such a poor ambassador for it that he isn't exactly winning over converts, just rallying his own "faithful" (or faithless as it were).

i dunno, he seems to be doing a decent job of keeping the flock in line